What is the legal basis for a conditional plea in a sexual assault case?

At his request, this court appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting that we undertake an independent review of the entire record. We offered appellant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error. First, the record shows appellant was adequately advised of the rights being waived and the consequences of pleading guilty. There is substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary given the advisals by the court and appellant's statements that he had had enough time to review the evidence against him as well as any defenses he might have with his attorney.

Second, the record demonstrates appellant was mentally competent based on the report of the expert appointed pursuant to Penal Code section 1368. Third, two out of three of the mental health experts who evaluated appellant found he was sane at the time of the crimes. Counsel for both sides stipulated to the existence of a factual basis for the plea, which satisfies the legal requirements for a conditional plea. (See People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432, 443-444.)

Finally, the record establishes that appellant received effective assistance of trial counsel, absent any evidence that counsel's performance was deficient under an objective standard of professional reasonableness, or prejudice under a test of reasonable probability of an adverse effect on the outcome. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 694.) There was no constitutional violation.

We have completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.